DDI Selection Forecast 2007

SELECTION FORECAST 2006 | 2007Slugging Through the War for Talent> Ann Howard, Ph.D. > Scott Erker, Ph.D. > Neal Bruce

MICABERSR14_CV.qxp 4/26/2007 3:01 PM Page 1

SELECTION FORECAST 2006 | 2007Slugging Through the War for Talent> Ann Howard, Ph.D. > Scott Erker, Ph.D. > Neal Bruce

Welcome from the AuthorsWe are pleased to present DDI’s third and most multifaceted study

of recruiting and hiring talent. Since the first report in 1999, the

trumpeted “War for Talent” has indeed arrived. The competition for

talent from a shrinking pool of skilled workers can sometimes seem as

up close and personal as a boxing match—the theme for this year’s

Selection Forecast report.

This report demonstrates that managing the hiring process can be

both frustrating and exhausting. This Selection Forecast uncovers

valiant efforts that are liberally sprinkled with oversights, misperceptions,

and eyebrow-raising foibles. But don’t despair. Although the survey

results exemplify our title of slugging through the war for talent, they

also lay the groundwork for multiple insights into how to score a

knockout.

In our first recruiting and hiring survey, DDI relied on the perspectives

of staffing directors; we added hiring managers to the second study.

This time, thanks to a productive DDI-Monster partnership, we have

the additional viewpoint of an important but neglected stakeholder—

the job seeker. Comparing and contrasting these three critical

perspectives makes this study unique.

The hiring process should allow parties to come together for mutual

advantage. In the current labor market, however, the stakeholders

sometimes appear to be working against one another. A staffing

director digs deeply to find a good candidate that a hiring manager

subsequently alienates in the interview; a hiring manager lures a good

candidate to fill a long-vacant position just as an employee in the next

cubicle is enticed away by a competitor. As you read this report, we

invite you to put yourself in the other stakeholders’ shoes and consider

how their motivations and goals mesh—or conflict—with yours.

Most important, we want this report to be a catalyst for change.

Please discuss its findings with new employees, HR leaders, hiring

managers, and your executive team. Ask yourself, “What action steps

can we implement this month to improve our hiring process?”

We at DDI and Monster know that you can be better at finding,

acquiring, and keeping the best talent, and we’d like to show you how.

Hopefully, this report will encourage you toward that end and help

point the way.

MICABERSR14.qxp 5/2/2007 2:12 PM Page 1

ABOUT DDIIt’s a grow-or-die marketplace. Having the right talent

strategy is crucial. Development Dimensions

International (DDI) helps organizations systematically and creatively

close the gap between today’s talent capability and the people needed

to execute tomorrow’s business strategy. We excel in two areas:

• Designing and implementing selection systems that enable

organizations to hire better people faster.

• Identifying and developing exceptional leadership talent critical to a

high-performance workforce.

DDI is all about giving organizations the kind of business impact

they want—what we call “realization.” The work we do is tied to the

organization’s strategies and becomes part of its business and culture,

creating a solution with long-term sustainability. For multinational

organizations DDI has the kind of global resources needed to implement

talent initiatives effectively and consistently worldwide.

Each year organizations rely on DDI to assess more than 4 million

job seekers. Our wide range of selection solutions includes:

• Competency profiling to define key job roles required to drive

business success.

• More than 800 assessments, tests, and simulations that evaluate

knowledge, skills, experience, and motivations critical to on-the-job

success.

• Targeted Selection®, the leading behavior-based interviewing program.

• A full range of assessment tools that provide a clear picture of senior

leaders’ strengths, derailers, and development priorities.

ABOUT MONSTER.COMMonster® is the world’s leading recruitment advertising

company. A division of Monster Worldwide, Monster

works for everyone by connecting quality job seekers at all levels with

leading employers across all industries. Founded in 1994 and

headquartered in Maynard, MA, Monster operates in 38 countries today.

More information is available at www.monster.com or by calling

1-800-MONSTER. To learn more about Monster’s industry-leading

employer products and services, visit http://info.monster.com.

DDI TREND RESEARCHThe Selection Forecast 2006–2007 is part of the continuing series

of trend research by DDI’s Center for Applied Behavioral Research

(CABER). Selection Forecast research occurs biennually; research

for the companion report, the Leadership Forecast, takes place in the

alternate years. CABER also investigates special topics around

optimizing human talent in the workplace.

Executive summaries of research reports are available at

www.ddiworld.com. To order full reports, call DDI Client Service

at 1-800-944-7782 (US) or (outside the US) 1-724-746-3900.

2 Selection Forecast 2006 | 2007

© Development Dimensions International, Inc., MMVII. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All rightsreserved under U.S., International, and Universal Copyright Conventions. Reproductionin whole or part without written permission from DDI is prohibited.


CONTENTS4 About the Study

4 Job Markets

4 Hiring Perspectives

5 The War for Talent Heats Up

7 Implications for Stakeholders

11 The Challenge for Organizations

12 Not Taking Your Bait

12 Recruiting Methods Vary by Position

13 Recruiting Messages Miss Their Targets

16 Well, Maybe

16 Dissatisfaction with Selection Systems

19 Neglect of Scientific Selection Methods

22 Thanks, but No Thanks

22 Sabotaging the Interview

28 Good Interviewing Aids Selection

30 Hello, Good-bye

30 Employee Tenure Is Shortening

31 Why Employees Leave

33 Improving Retention

36 Scoring a Knockout

36 Lure Qualified Candidates

36 Spot the Best for You

36 Land Your First Choice

37 Keep Valuable Talent

38 Appendix

38 Demographics

42 Participating Organizations

47 About the Authors

47 Acknowledgments

48 Endnotes

CONTACT INFORMATIONANN HOWARD, PH.D.

CHIEF SCIENTIST

DEVELOPMENT DIMENSIONS INTERNATIONAL

1225 WASHINGTON PIKE

BRIDGEVILLE, PA 15017

PHONE: 412-257-3643 • FAX: 412-257-3093

E-MAIL: [email protected]

3


ABOUT THE STUDYThe escalating war for talent is pressuring organizations to ferret out job

candidates who also are being vigorously pursued by competitors. This

intense job market demands optimal efficiency and effectiveness, but

hiring processes are not measuring up. Dissatisfaction abounds, both

internally as human resource specialists and hiring managers struggle

to fill open positions, and externally as job candidates pick their way

through cumbersome and insensitive systems. Everyone, it seems, is

slugging through the war for talent.

To investigate hiring practices and pinpoint ways to improve them,

Development Dimensions International and Monster cosponsored the

Selection Forecast 2006–2007. The study sought information about

best practices for the full cycle of hiring: recruitment, selection, gaining

candidate acceptance, and retention.

Job MarketsOne goal of our research was to sample selection practices in key

regions of the world. Globally, job markets are affected by government

regulations, education systems, industrial development, and a host of

other factors that necessitate different approaches to hiring. For

example:

• In North America, the coming retirement of the baby boom generation

and a dearth of skilled new workers are making it increasingly difficult

to staff positions. The U.S. market has seen steadily rising wages,

firm job growth, and low unemployment.1

• Unemployment in Europe ranges widely. At the low end are countries

like Norway (3.5 percent unemployed for 2006) and Denmark

(3.8 percent), whereas Germany (8.4 percent) and France

(9.1 percent) have legions of applicants in the job market.2

• China’s economy is expanding by more than 10 percent a year, and

recruiters are swimming in resumes.3

• In New Zealand, where a skills shortage at all levels has existed for

some time, employers rate retention more important than attracting

talent.4

In light of these differences, a global average about hiring practices

would hide more than it would reveal. Instead, we aggregated our data

into five global regions: North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia,

and Australia/New Zealand. For this report we focus on the relatively

homogeneous North American job market, which includes the United

States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. We bring in comparisons with the

other regions where there are notable differences. Numerical summaries

of survey responses for each of the five regions are available on request.

Hiring PerspectivesAlthough many surveys rely on human resource (HR) professionals as

their primary source of information, we were more ambitious. We wanted

to compare and contrast perspectives on hiring from three primary

stakeholders: staffing directors, hiring managers, and job seekers. We

invited staffing directors in organizations around the globe to respond to

surveys about their organizational practices and, in addition, to send

surveys to hiring managers in their organizations. We also sent survey



invitations to online job seekers who had updated their

resumes within the previous 12 months. To help flesh out

the results, we conducted 30 one-on-one interviews with

job seekers.

Table 1 shows the final tally of survey participants. More

details are in the Appendix.

Hiring practices also vary according to the type of position to

be filled. Where relevant, we asked staffing directors and

hiring managers to indicate how their hiring experiences varied

for five types of positions: individual contributors, professionals,

first-level leaders, mid-level leaders, and executives. Job

candidates also indicated the type of jobs they were seeking.

Definitions of these positions and their associated sample

sizes are in the Appendix.

THE WAR FOR TALENT HEATS UPStaffing directors in North America overwhelmingly reported

that competition for talent had increased since 2005 (see

Figure 1). Even more (79 percent) expected it to intensify in

2007. The war for talent is hot and getting hotter.

The war for talent is hotand getting hotter.

5

Total North AmericaStaffing Directors 628 376Hiring Managers 1,250 635Job Seekers 3,725 1,183

SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

1 Competition for Talent Since 2005



Staffing directors in the other regions differed somewhat in their

estimations of “heating up” since 2005 (see Figure 2). Those in

Australia/New Zealand were most aware of an increase in the competition

for talent. A case in point: Australia has been suffering from a shortage of

skilled workers in the financial services sector,5 and acute demand has led

to the addition of IT professionals to its Migration Occupations in Demand

List.6 On the other hand, staffing directors in Europe were somewhat less

likely to report an increase in competition for talent since 2005. These

results reflect a predominance of staffing directors reporting from France

and Germany, where unemployment has slowed down the effect. When

looking ahead to 2007, staffing directors across all regions were equally

concerned about additional competition in hiring.

The competition varied for different types of positions. Nearly two-thirds

of North American staffing directors experienced strong competition when

hiring new executives, while only one-third found it strong for individual

contributors. Competition also was strong for mid-level leaders and

professionals (see Figure 3).

The contest to hire executives and professionals most likely reflects the

fierce demands of complex global competition. Many growing companies

also may be re-staffing mid-level management positions eliminated some

years ago when organizations flattened. Given the rise in importance of

knowledge-based services and the decreasing amount of time before

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

2 Reported Increases in Competition for Talent Since 2005

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

!��

� ��

��

��

"��

��

#�� $

��

��

% ��

��

��

��

�&��

� �

�

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

3 Strong Competition for Candidates by Positions


technological obsolescence sets in, up-to-date professionals

are in particularly high demand. Staffing directors reported

that there were fewer qualified candidates for professional

positions than for any other job category (see Figure 4).

* Throughout this report, totals might not equal 100% because

of rounding.

Implications for StakeholdersThe talent war has important implications for various

stakeholders. Staffing directors and hiring managers are

getting desperate to bring qualified candidates in the front door

at the same time that employees are venturing out the back

door in search of new opportunities.

Staffing DirectorsStaffing directors feel pressured. Their job is

growing much tougher as barriers to hiring rise.

Competition and a dearth of qualified candidates that are

difficult to find create the greatest obstacles for staffing directors.

More respondents cited these factors as their top three barriers

to recruiting and hiring in 2006 than did respondents to a similar

survey in 20047 (see Figure 5).

Staffing directors andhiring managers are

getting desperate to bringqualified candidates in the

front door at the sametime that employees areventuring out the back

door in search of new opportunities.

7

� � � � � � � � � � !��

'(

')

'*

*(

'+

')

',

'-

()

*.

.+

.+

/

-

.+

�� !"��

�� #$�%��$��

&�"��"��

��%��"� ��'� "��

!�#$�%��$��

()�� %��

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

4 Qualified Candidates Are More Difficult to Find*

* +��"�,� ��-��"��,,��

$�%��"��.��'�� ."��"��

�� .��-�� .��-��,,��

��/��,,�� %��'��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � �

FIGU

RE

5 Top Barriers to Recruiting and Selecting Employees


The level of salary and benefits was less of a barrier than the top three,

perhaps because organizations are adjusting salaries to compete for

employees. Nearly half of the employers responding to a recent survey

planned to increase initial salaries to employees.8

The war for talent has significant financial implications beyond increased

salaries. In the next two years, one-third of the responding organizations

are planning to pour more money into job advertising and two-fifths plan

to increase their budgets for selection (see Figure 6).

Hiring ManagersHiring managers feel anxious. If the right people can’t be

found, how will they get their work done?

> 53% could lose a direct report within six months.

> 51% find fewer qualified candidates available compared to two years ago.

To better understand this anxiety, consider the situation facing sales

leaders. In a recent study, more than 100 sales leaders set a median

goal of 10 percent growth in sales for 2007. Most felt confident they

could achieve that goal by getting better production from their current head

count. However, turnover of star talent and difficulties finding replacements

who can perform at the same level will severely compromise the sales

leaders’ ability to meet this double-digit growth target.9

The pressure on hiring managers has caused a change in strategy. More

than half (51 percent) felt some need to sell the job and company to the best

candidates; 15 percent felt they must sell a lot, a rather small percentage

considering the brisk competition for talent. The hiring managers went into

selling mode most often for executive-level candidates (see Figure 7), who

are much in demand—particularly with the impending retirement of baby

boomers—and likely to scrutinize the organization as well as the position.


� � � � � � � � � � !��

.)

,0

(+

,0

(*

('

0" �� 1�� 1�$� ��

!�#$�%��$��

�� #$�%��$��.,

.0

.. ,0 ''()�� %��

.)

"��+� 1�$"

��

�1 � �

�%��

��

FIGU

RE

7 Felt Need to Sell Job/Company to the Best Candidates � � � � � � � � � �

!��

'.

(/

,0

(,

(.

,)

��2�."�� "� �� "�13�� "�� "�

�.� +��

�� "�

4"'�1�

��

'

,

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

6 Hiring Expenditures in the Next Two Years


Some hiring managers were willing to hire a good person even

if the job fit wasn’t quite right; that is, they would change the

job or find a job that would better fit the person. There were

regional differences in whether hiring managers were willing to

take this approach (see Figure 8). Beyond the pressures of a

tight job market, cultural differences are likely to influence

managers’ comfort with changing a job to fit a good candidate.

Job SeekersJob seekers feel bold. If one job doesn’t pan

out, they’ll find another one.

Among employed job seekers, 61 percent had more than one

full-time job in the past five years. Ten percent had four or

more jobs during this time (see Figure 9).

Job seekers feel bold. Ifone job doesn’t pan out,they’ll find another one.

9

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�1 � �

�%��

��

FIGU

RE

8 Willingness to Change the Job to Fit the Person

�5��4"'�

��

�5��4"'��

�6�4"'�

��4"'

��

��

�2�

$��

�3��

FIGU

RE

9 Number of Jobs in the Past Five Years


The youngest job seekers were more likely to have had many recent

jobs, suggesting that they are putting themselves and their careers

ahead of loyalty to the organization. Given that a large majority of this

age group lacked a higher degree and were employed in individual

contributor jobs, this simply might reflect the casual job market. Future

retention does not look promising, however, if this finding reflects a

broad-based, persistent trend.

Almost half (46 percent) of the individual contributors had applied for 10

or more jobs in the past year; the proportion of professionals (43 percent)

was not far behind (see Figure 10). The North American job seekers

were particularly active; those in other regions made fewer applications.

As would be expected, employment status was related to the number of

job applications. Two-thirds of the job seekers who were unemployed or

working part-time applied for five or more jobs in the past year; however,

half of the full-time employed also applied for five or more jobs. The

message is clear: Organizations cannot take the loyalty of their

employees for granted.


� � � � � � � � � �

.-

.'

)

)

,-

(+

,,

,.

,(

.-

,0

,*

� �5� �5�

�� #$�%��$��

&�"��"��

��%��"� ��'� "��

!�#$�%��$��

'/

7�

'(

()

,-

��

�2�

$��

�3��

FIGU

RE

10 Number of Jobs Applied for Last Year


The Challenge for OrganizationsMost organizations today are built on intangible rather than

tangible assets. Their fortunes derive less from goods they

make and more from the services and expertise that their

employees provide. If you rely on human capital to compete,

inevitably you must compete for human capital.

The driving need for capable employees explains why

employer branding—or marketing your organization to the

people it wants to hire—has become such a buzz phrase in

human resources.10 But marketing is no more than the first

bread crumb leading human capital out of the forest. To

survive the war for talent, organizations need to be at the top

of their game in recruiting, selection, and retention. Their

processes and practices must be strategic and efficient and

have bull’s-eye accuracy.

Unfortunately, our research uncovered little evidence of such

excellence. On average, both staffing directors and hiring

managers were lukewarm in their evaluation of the quality of

their recruiting and hiring strategies and processes (see

Figure 11). Only about 10 percent of each group rated either

practice “top of the game” (9 or 10 on a 10-point scale).

To meet the competitive challenge of the war on talent, your

organization must prevail at each of the following steps:

1. Lure qualified candidates.

2. Spot the best for you.

3. Land your first choice.

4. Keep valuable talent.

Organizations that stumble on any of the four steps will not

have the talent they need to reach their business objectives.

Moreover, they will face mounting costs as departing

employees force them to endlessly repeat the hiring process.

Marketing is no more than the first bread crumbleading human capital out

of the forest. To survivethe war for talent,

organizations need to be at the top of their game

in recruiting, selection,and retention.

11

8�� -

�� "�

9��-�!��-�� -�� "��

� � � � � � � � � �

� � � � � � � � � �

� ��

� ��

FIGU

RE

11 Overall Effectiveness Ratings

��

��

��

��


NOT TAKING YOUR BAIT Today, attracting job candidates seems easy for

organizations that use electronic systems like company

web sites and large online job boards. Staffing directors

indicated that these are two of their most frequently

used recruiting tools. Interpersonal methods like employee referrals and

networking also were popular.

Recruiting Methods Vary by PositionOrganizations adapt their recruiting methods to the type of target position

(see Figure 12). Recruiters leaned on headhunting firms for higher-level

positions but used them less often for lower-level jobs. Contrarily, they

most often used employee referrals and electronic methods to find

candidates for lower-level positions but were less inclined to use them

to find executives.

There were some regional differences in the choice of recruiting

methods. North Americans made more use of online job boards,

whereas Asian recruiters were more likely to use newsprint ads.

Australian staffing directors, apparently needing a proactive approach to

find candidates, were more likely to use headhunting firms at all levels.


(�,�".��

��

��

��

��%��"� ��'� "��&�"��"��

�� #$�%��$��!�#$�%��$��()�� %��

�"�,��.��'��

$��-��"��3"'�'"��

0� �"�:��-

9��+��

!��

� � � � � � � � � �

FIGU

RE

12 Preferred Methods for Finding Candidates

��

��

��

��


Your goal should be toattract candidates who are

a good fit with a job oryour organization

and not wasting time and resources on

candidates who aren’t.

13

Recruiting Messages Miss Their TargetsReaching the most candidates is not your optimal goal.

Rather, your goal should be to attract candidates who are a

good fit with a job or your organization and not wasting time

and resources on candidates who aren’t. Taking the time to

craft an effective online job posting can pay off enormously in

terms of targeting the right candidates (see sidebar).

How to Write Effective OnlineJob Postings

Be Specific

A quick job search turns up mostly

short ads with no clear definition of

job requirements. If half the people

reading the ad can imagine

themselves to be qualified, your

inbox will be full within hours.

Writing specific postings takes a

little longer, but by helping job

seekers understand your needs,

you’l l reduce the number of

applications from unqualif ied

candidates and ultimately save

more time than you spend.

Be Clear

Make sure the requirements and

job duties are easy to understand

by someone who does not already

work for your company. Some

postings have so much corporate

jargon that it ’s diff icult for job

seekers to tell if they are qualified,

leading many to simply press a

button to submit a resume.

If you’re not sure whether you have

included “companyspeak,” have a

friend or fellow HR professional

review your posting and give you

feedback.

Be Up Front

Dissuade potential job seekers

from speculative applications by

adding a statement explaining that

your requirements are firm.

Be Demanding

Don’t make the application process

too easy. Instead of just asking for

a resume, include an assignment

in your posting. Qualif ied

candidates will be excited to have

the opportunity to stand out from

the crowd, while casual applicants

will be less willing to put in that

much effort for a long-shot

application.

To be successful in your

recruitment efforts, you must

constantly adapt your strategies to

suit the market. You must manage

the candidate flow so you can

effectively service your

organization. By creating specific,

clear job postings and an

application process that requires

effort on the part of the applicant,

you can reduce the number of

unqualif ied candidates and

increase your chance of making

the right hire quickly.

—Abridged from Louise Fletcher,of the Monster.com for EmployersResource Center.


Survey results suggested that both staffing directors and hiring managers

might miss out on attracting the best applicants because they

misunderstand what job candidates are looking for. Job seekers cited

many factors as important to them in a new job, but hiring managers and

staffing directors downplayed the importance of some of these factors. In

particular, employers gave short shrift to environmental factors that job

seekers valued, like an organization to be proud of, a creative or fun

workplace culture, and a compatible work group (shown as underrated in

Table 2).

Regional differences also affected job seekers’ desires. Asian job seekers

showed the least interest in a fun, creative organizational culture. In Europe

most job seekers looked for a compatible work group and interesting work;

they were less attracted by vacations or company leadership than job

seekers elsewhere. Because vacations tend to be generous in Europe, one

firm has no particular competitive advantage over another in this regard.

Age exerted another kind of influence on job seekers. The highlighted

areas in Table 3 show what’s particularly important to certain age groups

relative to others when searching for a new position. Different life and

career stages most likely account for these age-related motivations (see

the Job Search Life Cycle on page 15), although generational

perspectives also might carry some sway.


PERSPECTIVES ON WHAT JOB SEEKERS WANT IN A POSITION*

Job Hiring Staffing Seeker Manager Director

Opportunities to learn and grow 78% 68% 69%Interesting work 77% 63% 63%A good manager/boss 75% 69% 57%An organization you can be proud to work for 74% 58% 55%Opportunity to advance 73% 69% 77%Promise of stability/job security 70% 62% 65%A creative or fun workplace culture 67% 50% 43%A compatible work group/team 67% 50% 37%Balance between work and personal life 65% 65% 65%Opportunity for accomplishment 64% 53% 41%* Beyond salary and benefits Underrated


The lesson here is that when describing open positions,

employers need to attend to factors beyond what is in the job

description to appeal to candidates in particular age groups:

• The very young respond to a fun workplace where they can

make friends.

• Those in their 20s and 30s are intent on growing and moving

up the organization. This can create tension for young

families, encouraging those in prime parenting years (30s)

to be alert to the balance between work and personal life.

• Mid-career and senior employees care more about

opportunities for accomplishment, with senior employees

also attentive to the organization’s reputation and its

people. They want a good manager and compatible team,

but also an organization that has strong leaders and makes

them feel proud.

Organizations won’t be able to attract the best job

candidates if their messages fail to address their target

audience’s interests. You can’t lure the right fish if you

don’t use the right bait.

15

WHAT’S MOST IMPORTANT TO JOB SEEKERS BY AGE

��4�5��3

%� ��6�

7��

%8��8

%8#��8

��

��

��

��

��

Job Search Life Cycle

Age Group<20 21–30 31–40 41–50 >50

A creative or fun workplace culture 77% 72% 69% 62% 62%A compatible work group/team 71% 64% 65% 66% 75%Opportunities to learn and grow 67% 81% 85% 77% 72%Balance between work and personal life 65% 63% 71% 63% 63%Opportunity to advance 62% 80% 79% 73% 59%Opportunity for accomplishment 52% 61% 64% 67% 70%A good manager/boss 68% 73% 74% 75% 83%An organization you can be proud to work for 59% 74% 72% 74% 81%Great company leadership 39% 51% 57% 62% 65%

Relatively More Important

You can’t lure the rightfish if you don’t use

the right bait.


WELL, MAYBEAssuming you can lure qualified candidates to apply for

a position, your next challenge is to spot the applicant

most suitable for your job and organization. Doing this

well requires a comprehensive selection system that

uses several methods to tap into different aspects of human talent:

knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal attributes.

Dissatisfaction with Selection SystemsMost organizations’ selection systems were found wanting; fewer than

half of the respondents, whether staffing directors or hiring managers,

rated their level of satisfaction with their hiring process high or very high.

Two-fifths of staffing directors said that in the next two years their

organization will not only spend additional funds beyond inflation on

selection, but also will significantly change their approach to selection.

> 57% of hiring managers rated their satisfaction with the

hiring process as medium, low, or very low.

> 58% of staffing directors rated their satisfaction with the

hiring process as medium, low, or very low.

> 40% of staffing directors will significantly change their

approach to selection in the next two years.

Legal defensibility was the only aspect of selection systems that at least

two-thirds of staffing directors and hiring managers rated high or very

high (see Figure 13). Only about half of each group gave high ratings to

the hiring process’s objectivity, its ability to identify people with the right

behavioral experiences and background, and its ability to provide a

complete picture of candidate qualifications. There was even less

satisfaction with ensuring a fit between candidates’ values and

preferences and the organization or job. The efficiency of selection

systems drew the most critical response, with only one-third of staffing

directors and hiring managers rating theirs high or very high.


(��"��

(��.

(��-�3"'��

��(��-"�-��;� �"��

��

��

��

��-�� "�� 9��-�!��-��

��&�"%��-�"�,�� ,��

�� .��-��-+ �),��

��*'3�� %� . ��

��$�-��'�� . ��

FIGU

RE

13 Aspects of Selection Systems Rated High or Very High

��

��

��

��


Staffing directors measured the success of their selection

systems primarily by the quality and tenure of new hires and

the satisfaction of their primary stakeholders, the hiring

managers (see Figure 14). These priorities appear quite

appropriate. However, if hiring managers are dissatisfied with

the efficiency of selection methods (as noted in Figure 13),

staffing directors need to pay more attention to this aspect as

well. Yet, only 42 percent of staffing directors measured speed

to hire, a critical factor when job seekers can become impatient

and take a job elsewhere.

Inefficient selection systems also can alienate job seekers.

Nearly three-fifths (59 percent) indicated that after applying for

a job, they wanted either an interview scheduled or a “no”

answer within a week or less. Also, they expected quick

feedback after an interview, but what they got too often was

deafening silence for weeks or even months.

“I left the interview being told that they would contactme within a week with more information or a decision.This occurred three and a half weeks ago. They leftme in the dark on the conclusion.”

—Job seeker, industrial design

Costs did not loom large among staffing directors’ concerns.

Only 39 percent measured the cost per hire, and only 3 percent

named costly selection systems as one of their top three

barriers to recruiting and hiring employees. Although it’s hard

to justify their ignoring costs, a great deal of research has

shown that the investment in sound hiring methods pales

when compared to the gains from a high-quality hire who will

stay with the organization.11

Although the costs of a good selection system are easily

recovered, the costs of a poor system are often unrecognized

and can quickly grow. Slow replacement of lost employees—

particularly leaders—is a hidden cost of an inefficient selection

system. (See sidebar on page 18.)

Although the costs of agood selection system areeasily recovered, the costs

of a poor system are often unrecognized and

can quickly grow.

17

�"� �,��+��

0��'��"��-��+��-��

,�� "�+��

�� "��

��

��

��

��9��-��-�� "�

��0��+��3"',��"��

��<��"%��

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

14 Measures Used to Determine Selection Systems’ Success


The higher the management level, the longer it takes to replace the

person (see Figure 15). North American organizations take the longest

to replace managers at all levels. The problem is most acute for

executives, perhaps because of the time it takes for headhunter firms to

locate appropriate candidates.


The True Costs of Hiring

Every t ime a new posit ion comes

open—whether from an increase in

head count or through turnover—a cost

meter starts running. It can take

months or years to recoup the costs

incurred from the time the meter starts

running until a new hire becomes fully

productive. These costs fall into three

main areas:

1. Hiring Process—How much does

it cost your organization to find

and place a new hire (include advertising and posting costs; time and costs for

sourcing, screening, and evaluating candidates; and travel and relocation costs)?

How long does it take to fill open positions? These costs can run in the

thousands of dollars.

2. Ramp-Up—Once candidates accept your job offer, how much extra time do their

managers or coworkers spend with them? What training investments are needed

to educate new hires on internal processes or to accelerate their development?

3. Productivity Gaps—What is the performance gap between your star performers

and the rest? A 2000 McKinsey study found that, compared to average

performers, high performers in operations roles generate 40 percent more

productivity, those in general management roles generate 49 percent more in

increased profits, and those in sales functions generate 67 percent more in

revenue.12 A highly accurate selection system can help you recover costs quickly

and increase profits; a poor system will do neither.

Ultimately, you need to pressure-test your selection system in each of these three

areas to see where and how much money your organization is losing and ultimately

gaining.

<�!(

$*

&8*

��<

9��-�&�"�� 8��,#=, &�"�� %� .

0��9��

1��, �'��&��"��

�

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

�� #$�%��!��-�� !�#$�%��!��-�� ()�� %�

(��",� 0"� +1��

$� ��1��

1�� 1�� >0��?��

��

��

��

9��

3�

FIGU

RE

15 Average Weeks a Position Is Vacant


Neglect of Scientific Selection MethodsSelection tool usage has changed only modestly since DDI’s

previous Selection Forecast in 2004. The significant shifts in

tool usage that did occur (see Figure 16) should have led to

more efficiency. In other words, there was an increase in

computerized methods (biographical data, résumé screens)

and a reduction in more labor-intensive methods (drug tests,

application forms). Although these are steps in the right

direction, the low level of satisfaction with selection system

efficiency (as noted in Figure 13) suggests that organizations

still have a long way to go.

A larger problem with respondents’ selection systems was

overreliance on traditional methods like application forms,

manual résumé screening, and background checks (see

Figure 17). An exception was that a large majority used

behavior-based interviewing, a well-researched and effective

method of probing into job candidates’ relevant experiences.

Using only a narrow range of traditional tools has two major

consequences: important aspects of candidates’ qualifications

will be overlooked, and the information gained will lack the

accuracy that could be provided by scientifically developed

methods.

Using only a narrowrange of traditional tools has two major

consequences: importantaspects of candidates’qualifications will be

overlooked, and theinformation gained will

lack the accuracy thatcould be provided

by scientifically developed methods.

19

2�"-��,+�� "��

�"�,� ��;��@��@��

��-� ��

��1,,�� "��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� � � �

FIGU

RE

16 Change Over Time in Selection Methods Used Extensively

��-� ��

1,,�� "��"��

��8@��@��-A��

��

��

��8��+��:�

��2�+�%�"�#'�� %��

��2��:-�"��+��:�

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

17 Selection Methods Used Extensively



Organizations seriously underused techniques that evaluate personal

attributes or directly observe important behaviors, although these tools

offer substantial validity and distinct advantages to the selection

process.13 Despite more than 50 years of scientific research on these

methods, half or more of the staffing directors never used each type of

testing and assessment method listed in the survey (see Figure 18).

Organizations in other regions were twice as likely to use tests and

assessments. Only 37 percent of North American staffing directors made

extensive use of at least one scientifically developed test or assessment

compared to 80 percent of those in Latin America, 71 percent of those in

Europe, and 69 percent of those in Asia.

Failure to use scientific methods opens the door to inconsistencies and

leaps of faith in selecting employees. Organizations that neglect using

these techniques risk getting an inaccurate and incomplete picture of job

candidates.

> 53% of staffing directors noted that hiring managers don’t

use a consistent set of practices and procedures.

> 44% agreed that gut instinct and intuition play an important

role in selection decisions.

There were clear payoffs for organizations that made good use of even

one test and assessment method. Staffing directors rated the quality of

different aspects of their selection systems on a five-point scale (very low

to very high). Those who extensively used at least one scientifically

developed testing method were clearly more impressed with every

aspect of their selection strategies than those who sometimes or never

used one (see Figure 19). Although there were some gains in efficiency,

the biggest payoff came from a more objective process that provided a

well-rounded picture of candidates’ qualifications and fit.

In other words, selection systems without tests and assessments often

lack critical information that could turn a “maybe” about candidate

suitability into a clear “yes” or “no.” If you’re not currently capitalizing on

tests and assessments, see the sidebar on page 21 for some pointers on

how to enrich your hiring system.

B�"��-��

1'�� .� ��

&��"��>C"�:��,��

��4"'�� "��

��

��

��

��&��"�� .��%�� "��

��!" �%� �"�� %�� "��

�� -�� .� ��

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

18 Scientific Selection Methods That Were Never Used


21

��

��

��

=��() ��%��."�� =��0�%��=��

� �� "�� +�+��-

!��

�D� �D� �D �D� �D� �D� �D� �D �D�

(��.�"��+��-

*'3�� %� .�"��+��-

(��"��

$�-��'�� .

�"�,�� ,�� "�� /�� "��

�� .�,�",�� +��-+ ��),��

�� '� �� %��

�� '� �� E�,��3"'

�D� �D� �D �D� �D� �D� �D� �D �D�

FIGU

RE

19 Impact of Using at Least One Test or Assessment Method Adding Tests and Assessments to Your Hiring ProcessThe real value of deploying tests and assessments comes from painting a more complete and accurate

picture of a candidate. All facets of job success—knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal

attributes—should be systematically evaluated to make reliable hiring decisions. To build a comprehensive

hiring system, follow these steps:14

1. Clarify your purpose. Will you be using the system for internal as well as external selection? Does your

hiring strategy tie to your business strategy?

2. Set hiring system criteria. What do you want to gain from your hiring system? Look first for highly valid

techniques that will maximize the individual performance and commitment of selected candidates. Do you

also care about generating information for employee development, legal defensibility, candidate

acceptance, or efficient delivery? Your priorities might vary by type of open position.

3. Define employee success. What knowledge, experience, competencies, and personal attributes will be

important to success in each position to be filled? What characteristics are important for success in your

organizational culture?

4. Choose selection techniques. Select a parsimonious set of selection techniques, considering relative gains

in validity and usefulness. Each selection method has advantages and drawbacks that need to be balanced.

• Inferences about behavior can be made from tools like cognitive tests and personality inventories.

These measures most easily meet the efficiency criterion, but they might not gain candidate acceptance,

are more likely to have adverse impact than other methods, and have limited usefulness for guiding

development.

• Descriptions of behavior, knowledge, and experience come from biographical data, career

achievement records, and interviews. These methods can provide important information about the past,

but they provide little information about behavior in new and different positions and can be labor

intensive.

• Demonstrations of behavior come from work samples and simulations, typically used in assessment

centers. Simulations can address future jobs, provide information on trainable behaviors for

developmental feedback, and engender positive reactions from candidates. However, they are labor

intensive and best measure competencies that can be exhibited in condensed time periods.

5. Combine tools into a selection system. Multiple hurdles can enhance selection system efficiency. Use

efficient, computer-scored tools (like tests) to eliminate lower-end candidates and reserve labor-intensive

methods (interviews, assessment centers) to differentiate among a smaller pool of more promising candidates.

6. Execute your plan. How will you will introduce the new hiring system into your organization and assure its

continued success? Plan how to communicate the business case for the system, assign accountability for

its execution, develop the skills of those who will carry it out, align other systems, and measure the lead

and lag indicators that will tell you if your hiring system is meeting its objectives.


THANKS, BUT NO THANKSThe interview is a critical selection tool that helps you spot

the best candidate for a position. What is often overlooked

is its role in the next step in the hiring process—landing

the candidate you want. Two-thirds of the job seekers

reported that the interviewer influences their decision to accept a position.

This was particularly true in the Americas (see Figure 20).

Perhaps unwittingly, the interviewer, not just the interviewee, is on stage

during the experience. Both parties need to speak their lines in a

professional way, but the evidence suggests that amateurish behavior is

all too common.

Sabotaging the InterviewThe interview can easily become less a meeting of minds than a clash of

personalities. Both interviewers and interviewees found fault with each

other’s approach and illustrated their complaints with many poignant

examples.

Complaints About InterviewersRegardless of the type of position to be filled, interviewers irritated

candidates in multiple ways (see Figure 21). Most grievous to job

seekers were interviewers who acted as if they had no time to talk

with them. This behavior along with showing up late or appearing

unprepared devalued the interview as well as the interviewee. Such

carelessness can easily become a serious mistake in a talent-challenged

economy.

“The HR manager seemed pretty interested in me, but the hiringmanager seemed uninterested from the start. He never gaveany indication that he was even remotely interested in hiringsomeone, which made me question the value of giving my besteffort in the interview.”

—Candidate for managing editor position

“I had to wait for the hiring manager for 15 minutes. When hefinally came out, he said, ‘I’m sorry, who are you?’”

—Candidate for office manager position


� � � � � � � � � �

,+

.'

-

,.

,-

,0

,/

(+

(,

,0

((

,-

0" �� !"�� .��-+ �.

$� ��1��

0"� +�1��

(��",�

1��

,+

1��"

(,

(,

.-

��

�2�

$��

�3��

FIGU

RE

20 Influence of Interviewer on Job Acceptance

��

��

��

��


Second on the job seekers’ list of grievances was interviewers’

withholding information about the position. Interviewers who

fail to educate an applicant about the job (1) lose important

selection information by not soliciting the candidate’s reactions

to the position and (2) forfeit a timely opportunity to keep a

candidate from searching elsewhere.

“The recruiter mostly talked excitedly about myresume and qualifications. I didn’t learn much ofanything about the job and even less about theorganization.”

—Manager applicant, pharmaceutical company

Another common interviewer mistake was turning the

discussion into a cross-examination. Although candidates

expect to be asked questions, no one likes to be grilled.

“I got the impression that the interviewer wasdesperately looking for some evidence of falsificationon my application. I listed all my relevant jobs sincecollege graduation, but the interviewer asked aboutjobs before that. I said I had had some part-time jobs(like being a waitress) here and there in college andhigh school; some were in places that don’t existanymore. The interviewer said they neededeverything: names, numbers, addresses. When I saidthere was a good chance some previous supervisorshad died during the past 18 years and the informationmight be very difficult to get, she called me veryunprofessional.”

—Applicant for retail position

Job seekers also criticized interviewers for asking questions

unrelated to the skills needed for a position. Some were

questions of unsubstantiated validity, apparently used to make

inferences about traits or abilities. For example, “If you were

an animal (or a fruit, Disney character, tree, etc.), what kind

would you be?” or “What would you do if I gave you an

elephant?” Other questions invaded people’s privacy, such as

“Would you date two people in one night?” Personal

questions were particularly annoying to women.

“I had to wait for thehiring manager for

15 minutes. When hefinally came out,

he said, ‘I’m sorry, who are you?’”

—Candidate for office

manager position

23

��1� ��-��:��+��" �� "� ��:� "��

��C� +"��-��"�� "��'"� �,"�� "�

��<��-�� %�� "��"��#�)�� "�

��+"��-��,��

��1,,��-��,��,��"�� %��

��1�:��-�/�� "�� "�3"'��:��

��1�:��-�,��"��/�� "��

��<��:��-��'"�

"�� "��.�/�� "��

��

�2�

$��

�3��

FIGU

RE

21 Most Annoying Interviewer Behaviors


Even more hair-raising questions revealed that interviewers are risking

not only the loss of potentially valuable employees, but also their

organization’s reputation.

“If I had a very poor interviewing experience, I would want noassociation with that company at all as a customer. I might evenbecome an advocate against them.”

—Office manager candidate

Correcting interviewers’ faulty behavior

could considerably enhance organizations’

ability to land the candidates they want.

Adhering to a structured method like

behavior-based interviewing is also an

antidote to irrelevant questions that serve

no purpose except to annoy candidates.

Complaints About IntervieweesHiring managers also complained about

job candidates’ behavior (see Figure 22).

Like interviewers, job seekers engaged in

behaviors that suggested the interview

wasn’t that important. They came late or were poorly groomed or dressed.

Some even stated that the interview wasn’t important, saying, for instance:

• “I’m not sure that I want this job. I was just checking it out.”

• “I don’t really want this job. I just need 13 weeks for unemployment.”

• “How long is this going to take?”

Other applicants treated interviewer questions like an imposition.

For example:

• “That has got to be the weirdest and toughest question.”

• “I don’t need to answer these questions.”


Some InappropriateInterviewer Questions

• “If you were a dog, what kind

would you be?”

• “What do you think of the artwork

hanging on this wall?”

• “Would you date me and my

daughter at the same time?”

• “What is your natural hair color?”

• “What is the cost of the ring you

are wearing?”

��1,,��-�,""��.-�""��"��

��F�%��-�%�-��'"� �,�� ),��

��()�--�� -/�� "��

��2��-��

��<�� -�� %��/�� "��:��,"�� "�

��C� ++"��-��"�� "��'"� �+��>+��

��&��.��-�+�� "�-�

��<��:��-� ""��+ ��

�1 � �

�%��

��

��2��-�� "� +�� %��

FIGU

RE

22 Most Annoying Interviewee Behaviors


Although some self-promotion might be expected from job

candidates, many took it to a higher, unacceptable level.

Hiring managers thought some job seekers exaggerated their

qualifications to get the position, occasionally making

unbelievable claims such as:

• “I really am a rocket scientist.”

• “I can do all the jobs in this organization.”

• “You’d be a fool not to hire me.”

With a job market generally in their favor, job seekers also

made some outsized demands of their potential employers

(see sidebar).

A significant proportion of hiring managers accused some job

seekers of outright misrepresentation. They offered many

examples of how job seekers stretched the truth, such as:

• “An ICU nurse claimed she had open heart experience, but

it became very clear early on that she did not have the

knowledge base to care for this type of patient.”

• “He said he had a Ph.D. when the school he attended did

not offer that degree.”

• “Based on the applicant’s age and amount of experience

he claimed, he would have had to start his supervisory

career at age 10 and graduated from college at age 12.”

• “She misrepresented dates of employment to cover

employment gaps.”

• “He denied criminal convictions, but a background check

turned up four of them. When confronted, he said he was

set up and shouldn’t have been convicted.”

• “He claimed 10 years of experience in human resources on

his resume and in the interview, but a background check

found discrepancies; he was only 24. When he was

terminated, he said, ‘You’re firing me over that?’”

• “The applicant didn’t include a previous

employer due to being dismissed for

starting a fire in the storeroom.”

• “A technical writer claimed she wrote

publications when in fact she only

formatted them.”

• “A background check showed she never

enrolled in or graduated from the school

she placed on her résumé.”

25

Some Outsized IntervieweeDemands

• “Can I work in my pajamas?”

• “Do I have my choice of cars?”

• “I just got my college degree. Do

you think I could get an office with

a window?”

• “Can I bring my dog to work?”

• “I want your position.”


Hiring managers at the highest levels saw the most misrepresentation by

job candidates on either the résumé or in the interview (see Figure 23).

More than three-fourths (77 percent) of the executives claimed job

experiences had been misrepresented, and 44 percent claimed they had

dismissed someone for misrepresentation. The executives undoubtedly

had a broader perspective on the extent of misrepresentation both across

the organization and across time.

Despite the hiring managers’ claims, few job seekers admitted to

misrepresentation (see Figure 24). Some of the discrepancy might be

because managers were looking over many years of hiring; claiming

misrepresentation was modestly correlated (r = .14 for education, .17 for

experience) with tenure in a management role.

Cultural differences were

also apparent. Job seekers

in Latin America and Asia

were more likely to indicate

misrepresentation than

their counterparts in North

America or Europe. Yet

culture fails to explain

the difference between

interviewers and interviewees on how much misrepresentation actually

occurs; there is still a huge gap.


��

�1 � �

�%��

��

()�� %��!�#$�%��$�� #$�%��$��

!��

� � � � � � � �

!��,�� "��"��@��@

"�� %��

!��,�� ),��"��@��@

"�� %��

=��,��"��G��"��"�:��

��"��,�� "��"�

�@��@�"�� %��

� � � � � � � �

FIGU

RE

23 Executives Identified More Job Seeker Misrepresentation

!��,�� ),��"��@��@�"�� %��

=��,��"��G��"��"�:��

!��,�� "�"��@��@�"�� %��

��

��

��

9��-�!��-�� 4"'��:��

FIGU

RE

24 Do Job Seekers Misrepresent Themselves?

Job Seekers’ Confessions

Latin America:

• 18 percent misrepresent education.

• 21 percent misrepresent experience.

Asia:

• 12 percent misrepresent education.

• 18 percent misrepresent experience.


Other evidence suggests that job seeker misrepresentation is

fairly widespread. ResumeDoctor.com found that of 1,000

résumés checked, 43 percent had significant inaccuracies.15

In 2006 the legislature in the State of Washington passed a bill

that made using a fake or unaccredited degree a felony

punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

The bill also criminalized lying, either orally or in writing, to get

a job.16 If job seekers are misrepresenting their experience

and credentials, they are doing so at some degree of risk.

One final cluster of interviewer complaints related to how

interviewees answered the questions posed to them. A

frequent interviewer complaint was that job seekers were

vague about their past experiences. This is especially

problematic for hiring mangers trained in behavior-based

interviewing, which relies on getting interviewees to provide

examples of competency-related behavior.

Job seekers who were inarticulate or talked too much also

prevented interviewers from retrieving the information they

needed. Talking too much took on another connotation,

according to hiring managers’ write-in comments. Apparently,

many job seekers reveal personal information that is

embarrassing or even detrimental to their job application.

For example:

• “I left my previous job due to going off and smacking my

manager because she didn’t show me any respect.”

• “I got married too young and learned I really should have

listened to my mother.”

• “I applied for this job and other unrelated jobs in your

company—sort of like throwing spaghetti against the wall

to see what sticks.”

• “I was convicted of domestic violence last weekend, but it

was no big deal.”

• “I will be retiring in a few years, and I want this job for the

benefits.”

Job seekers would do well to heed advice on how to handle

an interview (as described in Landing the Job You Want17).

Even though the job market currently works in their favor, job

seekers’ should not set as their goal just any job, but the right

job. Getting there requires the kind of discussion that can

benefit both interviewer and interviewee.

“I applied for this job and other unrelated jobs

in your company—sort of like throwing spaghetti

against the wall to see what sticks.”

—Job seeker

27


Interview TrapsTheir respective complaints demonstrate that both job seekers and

hiring managers tend to fall into one or more of five common traps that

sabotage the interview. Table 4 summarizes these five traps—devaluing,

dueling, withholding, ego-stroking, and wandering.

These traps can be avoided. Organizations savvy enough to appreciate

the value of the interview as a sales tool can get an immediate payoff by

helping their managers recognize and avoid committing these costly

mistakes.

Good Interviewing Aids SelectionInterviewing should not be left to the idiosyncrasies of individual hiring

managers. Professional interview training not only assures a more reliable

outcome, but also boosts managers’ confidence in their ability to handle the

interview experience. Hiring managers who received interviewer training

rated their confidence in conducting a good interview considerably higher

than those who had not been trained (see Figure 25).

There are well-researched ways to conduct an interview that avoid the

common traps, provide critical information for selection decisions, and

serve to inform candidates about the position and its organizational

context. The behavior-based interview is a prime example (see sidebar).


FIVE DEADLY TRAPS THATSABOTAGE THE INTERVIEW

INTERVIEWER Mistakes INTERVIEWEE MistakesDevaluing Acting like there is no time to talk; Being late; showing up poorly

being late; appearing unprepared. groomed or dressed.Dueling Grilling the candidate. Treating questions like an imposition.Withholding Withholding information about Withholding information about self.

the position.Ego-Stroking Talking about oneself instead of Exaggerating (misrepresenting)

the candidate. qualifications; playing hard to get.Wandering Asking irrelevant, inappropriate, Giving vague answers; being

or personal questions. inarticulate; talking too much;revealing inappropriate personalinformation.

!"��

H��.��"��"��"�

9�-+

��H��.�+�-+ ��

��

��

��

��

�1 � �

�%��

��

=� �� <��

��

!"��

#�$!�

$%�&�

'(!�

)!�

*$�+

!,!&-

FIGU

RE

25 Training and Interviewer Confidence


Staffing directors whose organizations used behavior-based

interviewing extensively rated the effectiveness of their

selection strategy and process significantly higher than those

who used it only sometimes or never. In particular, those who

used behavior-based interviewing more were far better

equipped to identify candidates with the right kinds of

experience for the position (see Figure 26).

Ratings of the overall effectiveness of selection

strategy/process (10-point scale):

> 7.1 among those who used behavior-based interviewing a lot.

> 6.2 among those who used behavior-based interviewing

sometimes or never.

A scientifically sound method can capitalize on the interview

as a selection tool, and avoiding the deadly traps can

capitalize on the interview as a selling tool. Train your

managers in these foundations, and your interviews will help

you land the right candidates, not drive them away.

29

Behavior-Based Interviews

Behavior-based interviews provide a standard framework to gather and evaluate

job-related information from candidates systematically and reliably. They are

based on the belief that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.

During a behavior-based interview, candidates are asked to share information

about how they responded to particular situations in the past. The situations are

developed from critical incidents identified through job analysis and are directly

related to dimensions required to be effective in the targeted job/role. Follow-up

questions probe for specific details, including the consequences of the behavior.

In addition to determining a candidate’s skills and abilities, past behavior also can

be used to assess job motivation and organizational fit.

The selection and assessment literature supports the validity of the behavior-

based interview, primarily because of its structured format and the foundation

upon which it is built—the job/role analysis. This stands in sharp contrast to

traditional, unstructured interviews, which often show no relationship to later job

performance. Job-relatedness and consistent treatment of all candidates also

enhance legal credibility.

Behavior-based interviews are a flexible, efficient way of collecting information on

a wide variety of competencies. Unlike traditional, unstructured interviews, they

are easily integrated with other competency-based instruments to form a

comprehensive selection/development system.

!"��

H��.��"��"��"�

9�-+

��H��.�+�-+ �

��

��

��

��

��

��

"�� "��0�%��=��2�+�%�"�#2�� %��

=��2�+�%�"�#2�� %��() ��%��.

%"��

&! -!

�*$�

.�"!

".&�

�$)

!&/�!

*/&$�

01�'

!��#

��

FIGU

RE

26Behavior-Based Interviewing Identifies the Right Experiences


HELLO, GOOD-BYEThe most efficient selection system in the world won’t

help you meet your business objectives if you can’t keep

the talent you find. Unfortunately, retention is becoming

an increasingly serious problem.

Employee Tenure Is ShorteningNearly half of all hiring managers expected that new employees would

stay in their positions a shorter time than did their counterparts five years

ago. Executives were the most pessimistic; 61 percent expected new

employees to stay a shorter time.

The tenure situation may be more drastic than organizations realize.

Both hiring managers and staffing directors seriously underestimated

how long new employees would stay with the organization compared to

what job seekers thought was a reasonable time (see Figure 27).

Nearly one-third of job seekers had been in their current job less than six

months, yet they were already in the market for a new one. Apparently,

many had taken a placeholder job until something better came along

(see Figure 28).

“This job was going to be what kept me afloat while I looked atnew career directions. I thought it would be a good ideabecause I wouldn’t be desperate to take other jobs and lower mystandards.”

—Office manager

Job seekers in North America were particularly prone to taking placeholder

jobs, especially those in their teens and twenties. In Europe, however,

longer tenure before leaving for a new job was more the norm, perhaps

in response to government-mandated protections.


�5��I��

�5��I��

�5� �I��

��-�� "�� 9��-�!��-�� 4"'��:��

��%��"� ��'� "��

&�"��"�� #$�%��$��

!�#$�%��$��

J��"� +��

��

�6�.��

��5�.��

��5�

.��

��5��"� +�

��

�2�

$��

�3��

FIGU

RE

28 Job Seekers’ Tenure in Their Current Job

��

��

��

��FI

GURE

27 Perspectives on Expected New Employee Tenure


Why Employees LeaveOne impediment to better retention is that employers often are

clueless about why employees resign. Table 5 compares the

reasons job seekers give for leaving their most recent jobs with

what staffing directors and hiring managers believe causes

employees to leave. The biggest discrepancy between the job

seekers’ stated reasons and the perceptions of others is in the

impact of external factors (e.g., accompanying a spouse on a

move to another location, returning to school).

Ten percent of job seekers cited external factors as the reason

for moving on to another job, ranking it tenth in a list of

14 reasons for employee turnover. Yet, hiring managers and

staffing directors placed external factors as first and second

(respectively) in their rankings of the 14 reasons (shown as

overrated in Table 5). Such a startling gap in rankings

suggests one clear interpretation: that employees give face-

saving reasons (that is, an external factor) for resigning,

perhaps not wanting to discuss painful disappointments or to

burn their bridges behind them.

“This job was going to be what kept me afloatwhile I looked at new

career directions. I thought it would be a

good idea because Iwouldn’t be desperate to take other jobs andlower my standards.”

—Office manager

31

PERSPECTIVES ON REASONS FOR EMPLOYEE TURNOVER

Underrated

Overrated

Job Seeker Staffing Director Hiring ManagerRank Agree Rank Agree Rank Agree

Insufficient compensation, benefits, rewards/recognition 1 30% 3 48% 3 36%Lack of growth/development opportunities 2 29% 1 53% 2 37%Did not feel efforts were appreciated 3 24% 7 19% 6 19%Felt treated unfairly 4 18% 14 9% 10.5 13%Skills/Abilities not a good match for the job 5 15% 11 13% 12 12%The organization changed 6 13% 8.5 18% 10.5 13%Poor relationship with the manager 7 12% 4 35% 4 25%Did not find the work interesting 8 11% 10 13% 9 13%Poor fit with the organizational culture 9 11% 6 21% 7 18%External factors (e.g., spouse moves, going back to school) 10.5 10% 2 52% 1 53%Job changed focus or scope over time 10.5 10% 12.5 12% 13 10%Job left too little time for personal life 12 10% 8.5 18% 8 16%Job was not what the employee expected 13 9% 5 21% 5 22%The economy changed, making a move possible 14 3% 12.5 12% 14 10%


Reasons for leaving a job, as with reasons for taking a job, varied with

the employee’s age. The highlighted areas in Table 6 show what’s

particularly important to certain age groups when searching for a new

position. (See the Job Flight Life Cycle on page 33.) Employers need

to pay attention to what tempts different age groups to leave:

• Those in their teens and 20s are more likely to get bored and find

external reasons for leaving, such as going back to school or

accompanying a spouse who moves.

• Those in their 20s and 30s are likely to look elsewhere if rewards are

not forthcoming and growth opportunities appear limited.

• Employees in their 30s can become dissatisfied if the job leaves them

too little time for their personal lives.

• Organizations undergoing change need to be especially attentive to

the impact that change has on employees in their 30s, 40s, and 50s.

Knowing the real reason that employees leave is a key to preventing

short-term turnover, or “hello, good-bye.” If too many “polite”

explanations (such as external factors) keep turning up, beef up your exit

interviews, or even better, outsource them to a third party. A disgruntled

employee is more likely to open up with a neutral third party who can

assure anonymity.


TURNOVER REASONS BY AGE<20 21–30 31–40 41–50 >50

Insufficient compensation, benefits, rewards/recognition 18% 35% 29% 29% 26%External factors (e.g., spouse moves, back to school) 18% 14% 11% 7% 5%Did not feel skills/abilities were a good match for the job 15% 14% 16% 15% 15%Did not find the work interesting 14% 18% 9% 7% 8%Poor relationship with my manager 14% 12% 9% 13% 13%Did not feel efforts were appreciated 14% 28% 26% 24% 19%Lack of growth/development opportunities 12% 37% 33% 28% 19%Felt treated unfairly 12% 21% 18% 20% 15%Job was not what I expected 11% 12% 7% 8% 7%Job changed focus or scope over time 11% 8% 13% 11% 10%Job left too little time for personal life 8% 11% 15% 6% 11%My style did not fit well with the organizational culture 6% 10% 10% 13% 11%The organization changed 3% 7% 17% 16% 16%The economy changed, making a move possible 3% 1% 4% 5% 3% Relatively More Important


Improving RetentionIf you want to keep your employees, you need to pay attention

from the beginning of each person’s career. Many employees

have a rough beginning in their new jobs, which is a lost

opportunity for binding them to the organization. For that

reason, “on-boarding” is something organizations should

carefully consider.

On-BoardingFew staffing directors described their on-boarding as high

quality (see Figure 29).

But well-constructed on-boarding processes pay off. Staffing

directors with good or excellent on-boarding rated their

organization better at retention than other organizations in

their industry (see Figure 30).

The best on-boarding programs were longer and

capitalized on information from the selection process.

Only a minority of staffing directors (39 percent) reported

using selection information in on-boarding, but those who

used it for purposes such as creating development

plans were rewarded with lower average turnover of

professionals and executives. They also reported that

fewer employees left because of a poor relationship with

their manager.

33

��

��

��

��

��

1��1��%� �4:�

%��;��%��%��8

7��;��

<��#��8#��

Job Flight Life Cycle

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

()��

F""

&""�

��

FIGU

RE

29 Quality of On-Boarding

��

C"��

2� ��

��

��

F""�"��()�� *�#'"��-

&""��"��*�#'"��-

��&�

�&!�

�$��

21.

'�"$

&��

&/�'

$�'*

.�!3

.&!�

��

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

30 Quality of On-Boarding and Retention

Knowing the real reasonthat employees leave

is a key to preventingshort-term turnover,

or “hello, good-bye.”—Job seeker


Promotion OpportunitiesPromotion opportunities also can help you retain your employees. As

reported earlier (Table 2), opportunity to advance is one of the top five

factors that entice people to take a job. More than half of job seekers,

regardless of region, expected a promotion quickly—within one or two

years. This high expectation puts pressure on organizations to keep

high-quality employees moving ahead, particularly those in their twenties

and thirties.

Despite having employees eager for promotion, organizations fill two-

fifths to one-half of management positions from outside the organization

(see Figure 31). This seriously cuts into current employees’ promotion

opportunities and no doubt leads to frustration. Outside hires also pose a

higher selection risk, especially at professional and leadership levels.18

On a positive note, more than one-third of employers responding to a

recent job survey indicated that they planned to offer more promotions

and career advancement opportunities to their existing staff in 2007.19

Ongoing StrategiesOther retention efforts emphasize the importance of ongoing monitoring

and attentive, interested leadership. Surveys have demonstrated that in

about 85 percent of participating Fortune 1000 companies, employees’

morale sharply declines after their first six months and continues to

deteriorate for years afterwards.20 Some of the strategies used to inspire

worker loyalty include tying supervisors’ compensation to retention

performance, enabling work/life balance in the workplace, and monitoring

employee sentiment.21

Good Selection Leads to Better RetentionArguably the most powerful way to improve retention is to select the right

people to begin with. As reported earlier (Figure 14), staffing directors

use turnover as a primary measure of selection success. Survey results

showed that this emphasis is well founded. Staffing directors in

organizations with better retention than those in similar industries also

had notably better quality selection programs (see Figure 32).


�� #$�%��$��

��!�#$�%��$��

��

��()�� %��

��

��

��

FIGU

RE

31 Positions Filled by External Hires


In other words, getting a clear, accurate, and complete

portrayal of candidates in the selection process will help you to

keep the ones you select. If the job is an excellent match to a

candidate’s talents and motivations, the person has little to

gain and much to lose by saying good-bye.

If the job is an excellentmatch to candidates’

talent and motivations,they have little to gain

and much to lose bysaying good-bye.

35

�� '� �� %��

�� '� ��3"'�� E��,��

�� .��-�,�",�� + +��-+ ��),��

��"�,�� ,�� "�� /�� "��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��"��"�� "�� +��" +��

2� �� "�� +��" +��"�-��;� �"��

��*'3�� %� .�"��+��- ��

FIGU

RE

32 Selection System Quality and Retention of Good Employees


SCORING A KNOCKOUTThe war for talent continues to put pressure on organizations to do a

better job of finding and selecting employees who are capable of making

strong contributions to organizational effectiveness and who will stay

around long enough to do so. Satisfaction with current recruitment and

selection systems is only moderate; there is much room for improvement.

Despite increasingly difficult obstacles, getting better mileage from your

hiring system is far from impossible. This report has highlighted some

clear paths to improvement, which are summarized here.

Lure Qualified CandidatesThe best recruiting is efficient and targeted. Using

electronic methods can help satisfy candidates’ needs

for quick replies and feedback.

Branding your organization will enhance its appeal to candidates. But to

best target your message, investigate job seekers’ motivations and align

your recruiting message accordingly. Be sure to consider age, type of

open position, and cultural factors.

Organizations need to be aware of the critical role of hiring managers in

selling the organization and its job opportunities to candidates. Only

15 percent of hiring managers said they do a lot of selling to candidates,

but there is every indication that this percentage should be a lot higher.

Another strategy for hiring managers is to open their minds to valuable

talent, even if the fit to the open position is not ideal. They should

instead consider finding a more suitable job or changing the open

position to fit a good employee.

Spot the Best for YouThere is no replacement for selection system quality.

Yet many organizations are not capitalizing on

scientifically developed selection methods. Tests and

assessments will round out your picture of the candidate and yield more

valuable information. Furthermore, they will reduce inconsistencies and

the tendency of your managers to rely on their gut instincts when making

hiring decisions.

Selection systems can also benefit from incorporating more efficient

methods. One type of applicant-pleasing efficiency takes only a small

effort: giving them feedback as soon as you can. Shortening the time to

hire will also help you please both hiring managers and job seekers, as

will easy-to-use systems like online assessments.

Land Your First ChoiceMake hiring managers aware of their annoying interview

habits. Interactions with the interviewer can sway your

preferred candidates to join or reject your organization.

Interviewers need to be trained to use the interview as both a selling tool

and a selection tool. Many hiring managers are probably unaware of

how annoying some questions, behaviors, and habits can be to job

candidates.

To aid selection, interviewers need to adopt a sound, structured

interviewing method, such as behavior-based interviewing, to remain

objective and elicit information about competencies critical to performing

the open position successfully. This technique also can uncover

candidates’ misrepresentations of their experience.


��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��


Keep Valuable TalentEmployers are working against a trend of

declining retention. To counter this trend, you

will need to discover employees’ real reasons

for leaving your organization and address their underlying

dissatisfactions. Be sure to dig beneath the obvious external

factors that are likely to be merely face-saving rationale. To

optimize your chances for getting the truth, have a neutral third

party conduct your exit interviews.

Once you hire your preferred employees, you must be vigilant

from the start of their careers to keep them on your payroll.

First, focus on better on-boarding. Make the experience

longer and more intensive, and use selection information to

launch the development process.

After on-boarding, make sure you keep following up on

employee attitudes and sentiments. Train your managers on

behaviors that promote retention, and make them accountable

for keeping their reports satisfied and engaged. Workers loyal

to their organization have strong relationships with their

bosses, who provide clear expectations, honest feedback, and

personal support.

Reevaluate your needs for external hiring. Promotions are

motivating and can drive retention. If you’re not developing

people for promotion, you need to start doing so!

Last, but certainly not least, invest in high-quality, thorough

selection processes. Be sure to measure all aspects of your

candidates, including their fit to the job and your organization’s

culture. If the slippers are a comfortable fit, employees will

keep on wearing them.

If you’re tired of slugging through the war for talent, these and

other lessons from the Selection Forecast will help you duck

the punches and score a hiring system knockout.

For more information, or to participate in our 2008 SelectionForecast, e-mail [email protected]. If you’re tired of

slugging through the war for talent, these and

other lessons from the Selection Forecast will

help you duck the punches and score a

hiring system knockout.

37

��

��

��

��


DEMOGRAPHICS*

Organization Information (Staffing Directors)BUSINESS CLASSIFICATIONNorth America Other Regions

4.8 2.4 Aerospace & Defense0.5 2.0 Agriculture4.8 5.2 Automotive & Transport—Leasing/Manufacturing6.9 5.2 Banking2.4 8.8 Beverages

10.8 12.0 Business Services1.9 5.6 Chemicals3.7 1.2 Computer Hardware8.5 6.8 Computer Services7.4 4.8 Computer Software—Development & Sales5.3 3.2 Construction—Services & Materials5.6 6.0 Consumer Products Manufacturers1.1 4.4 Consumer Services0.3 0.4 Cultural Institutions2.1 2.8 Education4.0 4.8 Electronics4.8 4.4 Energy & Utilities0.5 2.0 Environmental Services & Equipment

18.5 9.6 Financial Services/Insurance3.4 8.4 Food2.4 1.6 Foundations & Charitable Organizations6.1 2.8 Government

* All numbers in tables, unless otherwise noted, represent percentages.

16.4 5.2 Health Care—Products & Services9.0 8.4 Industrial Manufacturing3.2 14.8 Leisure2.6 0.4 Media1.6 0.8 Membership Organizations1.3 3.6 Metals & Mining4.2 7.6 Pharmaceuticals4.0 2.8 Real Estate—Commercial & Residential4.5 6.4 Retail1.3 1.6 Security Products & Services3.7 3.2 Telecommunications—Equipment & Services4.2 6.0 Transportation Services

GLOBAL VS. NATIONALNorth America Other Regions

50.0 25.4 National company—Does not own, operate, or have affiliate offices outside home office country.

50.0 74.6 Multinational company—Owns, operates, or has affiliate offices in multiple countries.


APPE

ND

IX


PUBLIC VS. PRIVATELY HELDNorth America Other Regions

36.0 34.8 Public (U.S. market)6.5 22.0 Public (non-U.S. market)

57.5 43.2 Private

APPROXIMATE REVENUE FOR MOST RECENTLY COMPLETED FISCAL YEARNorth America Other Regions

1.9 3.4 Less than $1 million23.0 28.6 $1 million up to $50 million

6.7 8.2 $50 million up to $100 million18.5 18.4 $100 million up to $500 million10.4 8.8 $500 million up to $1 billion20.0 12.9 $1 billion up to $5 billion

7.4 7.5 $5 billion up to $10 billion4.8 4.1 $10 billion up to $25 billion7.4 8.2 $25 billion or more

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATIONNorth America Other Regions

1.1 0.8 1–104.5 2.9 11–504.5 6.1 51–1009.0 6.9 101–200

12.8 14.3 201–5009.6 17.1 501–1,000

24.2 21.2 1,001–5,0009.6 7.8 5,001–10,0006.6 7.3 10,001–20,000

10.1 9.0 20,001–50,0008.0 6.5 50,001 or more

GEOGRAPHIC REGIONN53 Europe (United Kingdom, France, Germany, The Netherlands)

378 North America (USA, Canada, Puerto Rico)56 Latin America (Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Panama)99 Asia (China, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia,

Thailand, UAE)23 Australia & New Zealand

39


Hiring ManagersNUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU DIRECTLY SUPERVISE OR MANAGENorth America Other Regions

3.8 2.6 None31.3 31.0 5 or fewer28.7 25.3 6–1018.0 19.8 11–2010.7 12.9 21–50

7.6 8.3 More than 50

LEADERSHIP/MANAGEMENT LEVELNorth America Other Regions

41.9 28.9 First-level leader—supervisor, group leader, foreman, etc.45.6 59.2 Mid-level leader—manager of other managers (division

manager, district managers, etc.)12.5 11.9 Executive—people in policy-making positions (CEO, COO,

CFO, executive VP, senior VP, plant manager, etc.)

FUNCTIONAL AREANorth America Other Regions

11.6 14.3 Accounting/Finance21.2 25.4 Administrative Support/Clerical21.9 21.0 Customer Service and Support

3.5 5.9 Distribution5.7 9.0 Engineering

20.8 2.8 Health Care26.6 25.9 Human Resources/Personnel

6.9 12.1 Information Systems2.7 3.6 Legal2.8 6.4 Maintenance/Facilities2.8 5.9 Manufacturing/Production/General Labor7.7 12.9 Marketing

15.3 24.4 Operations2.0 1.5 Publications/Graphic Design3.8 6.2 Purchasing6.3 7.0 Quality Assurance4.4 7.7 Research/Development1.6 4.2 Retail9.9 13.2 Sales



Job SeekersHIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATIONNorth America Other Regions

24.0 35.4 Technical, trade, or other specialized education44.7 20.8 College or university graduate10.8 25.6 Advanced degree beyond college or university20.4 18.2 None of the above

TYPE OF JOBS APPLIED FORNorth America Other Regions

11.1 8.7 Accounting/Finance47.7 32.9 Administrative Support/Clerical31.3 12.5 Customer Service and Support

5.1 8.2 Distribution6.0 6.9 Engineering9.7 3.7 Health Care

14.1 9.6 Human Resources/Personnel7.9 6.8 Information Systems3.3 0.9 Legal6.4 3.8 Maintenance/Facilities8.9 4.9 Manufacturing/Production/General Labor

13.9 10.0 Marketing9.6 3.9 Operations3.8 2.3 Publications/Graphic Design4.3 3.8 Purchasing4.3 3.1 Quality Assurance6.3 4.9 Research/Development

14.8 6.4 Retail19.9 18.0 Sales

AGENorth America Other Regions

5.6 4.1 20 or under28.7 38.4 21–3023.4 26.7 31–4026.1 20.4 41–5014.5 9.8 51–60

1.7 0.7 61 or older

LOWEST LEVEL OF JOBS APPLIED FORNorth America Other Regions

61.9 68.1 Individual Contributor—administrative, support, service, machine operators, technicians, craftworkers, etc.

17.3 13.0 Professional—engineers, lawyers, physicians, consultants, accountants, etc.

11.4 11.1 First-level leader—supervisor, group leader, foreman, etc.

7.8 6.0 Mid-level leader—manager of other managers (division manager, district manager, etc.)

1.5 1.8 Executive—people in policy-making positions (CEO, COO, CFO, executive VP, senior VP, plant manager, etc.)

41


PARTICIPATINGORGANIZATIONSAll organizations listed completed the staffing director

survey. Some (denoted with *) also completed leader

surveys.

3M

24/7 Customer Incorporated (Philippines)

Abbott Laboratories

ABIJCSUD

Advance Auto Parts

Advanced Health Media

Advanced Input Systems

Advanced Solutions International

AEGON

Aeroperlas Airlines

Aflac

AIRES, Inc.

Alberta Advanced Education

ALSTOM Transport

Amcor

American Bank of the North

American Express Company*

ANTON Research

AOL Canada, Inc.

APFORT

Aristocrat Technologies

ARM

Aronson & Company

Art.com, Inc.

Aspiring Solutions

Assédic de Basse-Normandie

Associated Electric Cooperative Inc.

Assurant Inc.

AstraZeneca International*

AT&T

ATA Solutions

Atlantic Lottery Corporation

Australian Liquor Marketers

Australian Paper

Avecia Biologics Limited

Avid Resource Corp.

AXA General Insurance Hong Kong Limited*

AXA Pacific Insurance Company

Ballina Beverages

Banco Popular

Banner Health

BBVA Bancomer

BCI

BDC

Becton Dickinson Medical*

Bellco Credit Union

Berger Lahr

Bharat Electronics Limited

BHP Billiton*

Biovail Corporation

Bisk Education, Inc.

BlueCross BlueShield of North Carolina

BlueScope Steel Limited*

Boeing - Delta Decatur Operations

Bombardier Aeronautique

Boston Centerless Inc.

Boys & Girls Clubs of America

bpi

British Columbia Public Service Agency

BRTRC, Inc.*

Brunner Mond

Business Objects*

Cabot Microelectronics Corporation

Campbell Soup Company*

Canadian National Railway Company

Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited

CARE USA

Carhartt, Inc.

Carilion Health System

Catalyst International

Caterpillar Mexico

CCC Information Services Inc.

Cenlar FSB

Centier Bank

CertainTeed

Cervecería Cuauhtemoc Moctezuma, S.A. de C.V.,

FEMSA*

The Chamberlain Group, Inc.*

CHAN Healthcare Auditors

Charter Global Inc.

Chicago Board Options Exchange

Children’s Health System of Alabama

Children’s Hospital Boston*

The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

China Vanke Co., Ltd*

China World Hotel

Christiana Care Health System

Cia Bras de Distribuição

CIBC*

Ciment St-Laurent

Cingular Wireless*

CIT Group Inc.

Citigroup

CLTF Collection Office

CMR Partners, LLP

Coca-Cola FEMSA*

Colgate-Palmolive Company (Philippines)

Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail

du Québec*

Comprehensive Therapeutics, Ltd.

Computershare Limited

ConnectiCare, Inc.

Conservation International

Construction Specialties, Inc.

Construrama La Santa Cruz

COPA Airlines, Incorporated*

Cornell University

Corrpro Companies, Inc.

Coshocton County Memorial Hospital

Costain Group PLC*

Covance Inc.

Covestic Inc.*



43

Crane Materials International

CSA Group

CTI Group

CTS Corporation

Cummins Behavioral Health Systems, Inc.*

Cummins Inc. (Mid-South)

Curbell, Inc.

DaimlerChrysler Corporation

DAK Americas LLC

Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

DBTS, Inc.

Deloitte & Touche USA LLP

DENSO International America

Department of Trade and Industry (Philippines)

Despacho Vázquez y Asociados SA de CV

Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll GmbH

& Co. OHG

DHL International, Ltd.

Diageo plc

Diehl Controls North America, Inc.

Dofasco Inc.

Dole Pacific General Services, Ltd.

Douglas County, Colorado

DRS Technologies, Inc.

DTSI

Dubai Port World

Dun & Bradstreet (Australia) Pty Ltd

DWP (Private) Limited

E.A.G. Services, Inc.

E&A Consulting Group, Inc.

EchoStar Satellite L.L.C.

The Edge Companies

eHealthPartners, Inc.

Elan

Embraer Liebherr Equipamentos do Brasil S.A.

Emdeon Corporation

Emerson Network Power

Emory University

Empaques Plegadizos Modernos SA de CV

Emron

Enterprise Community Partners

Enterprise Financial

EPCOR Utilities Inc.

Equity Residential

Erie Insurance Group*

Ernst & Young

ERP Search

Essential Group, Inc.

Eurotiles Industrial Corporation

Evangelical Christian Credit Union*

Evenflo México S.A. de C.V.

Express Check Advance LLC

Factiva, Inc.

FastCargo Logistics Corporation

FedEx Custom Critical*

FEMSA Empaque

F. Hoffmann-La Roche LTD

Financial Partners Credit Union

FinanciaLinx Corporation

FinishMaster, Inc.

The First American Corporation

First United Travel, Inc.

Fisher Scientific International

FLEXPIPE Systems Inc.

Fonterra Co-operative Group

Fortis

Franklin Templeton Investments*

Fresenius Medical Care North America

Frost GeoSciences, Inc.

Fujitsu Limited

GASAG Berliner Gaswerke Aktiengesellschaft

Gate Gourmet, Inc.*

GCC Cemento S.A. de C.V.*

GDKN Corporation

Gemmy Industries Corporation

General Electric Company—Financial Services

General Motors de Mexico Complejo Silao*

Gestion Humana

GFI – Romcarbon

Giant Eagle Inc.

GKN plc

Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance*

GMAC Insurance

Goodrich Corporation Sensor Systems

Gouvernement du Canada

Great Lakes Computer Source

Greenville Hospital System

Greif, Inc.

Griffin Canada, Inc.

Groupe Roullier

Grupo Celanese, S.A.

Grupo Scotiabank*

Grupo Tycoon

Guardian Industries

Gulf Coast Medical Center

GXS, Inc. (Philippines)

Habit Management

Habitat France

Hallmark Rehabilitation

Halpern Eye Associates

Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates

Haworth, Inc.

Heineken USA

Henkel International

Hewlett-Packard

Hill Physicians Medical Group, Inc.

Hill-Rom, Inc.

Hills Pet Nutrition, Inc.

Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC*

HireRight, Inc.

Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Inc.

(Philippines)

Honda Cars Philippines, Inc.

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corporation Limited*

Hormel Foods Corporation Shanghai

Huhtamaki Australia Limited

IBIDEN Philippines, Inc.

Idaho Power Company

IDC Research, Inc.



iGate Mastech

IKON Office Solutions, Inc.

iLearn Forum Ltd

illy caffe North America, Inc.

INCAT International*

inCode Wireless*

Infinity Property & Casualty Corporation

Infogix, Inc.

Infopark AG

ING Direct

Ingram Micro Inc.

in-integrierte informationssysteme GmbH

Inner Eastern Group Training

Integral Nuclear Associates, LLC

Intellectual Property Office

Interpharma Asia Pacific

IntraLase Corporation

INTRIA Items Inc.

Investance Group

IS3, Inc.

ISD Corporation

Ivax Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Mexico)

Janssen-Cilag

J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.*

Jekyll Island Authority*

Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc.

John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson (Caribbean)

Jollibee Foods Corporation Group

Kansas Gas Service

KaVo Dental Corporation

Kellogg Canada Inc.*

Kendrick Farmaceutica

KeyCorp

Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc.*

Kimura Inc.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc.*

Kohler Mix Specialties*

Konzerta

Lane Company

LANXESS (Sarnia)

Liberty Bell Equipment

Lifetouch Inc.

LifeWay Christian Resources

Lisi Aerospace

Liz Claiborne Inc. (Canada)

Lockheed Martin Corporation*

Lojas Riachuelo S.A.

L’Oréal SA

LSI Logic Corporation

LuK – Aftermarket Service

Lundbeck Brasil Ltda.

MAAF Assurances

The Main Street America Group

Manila Adventist Medical Center

Manila Pavilion Hotel*

Mann+Hummel Group

Marcedian S.C.

Maritz Inc.

Marriott International Inc.

MCM Technologies Berhad

McMount Consulting Services, Inc.

MeadWestvaco Corporation

MediCorp Health System

MediServe Information Systems, Inc.

Meeder Financial

Mercer, Inc.

Merck & Co., Inc.

Merck Frosst Canada LTD

Merck Sharp & Dohme (Asia) Ltd.

Merion Publications, Inc.

The MERIT Companies

Mervyn’s LLC

Metcash Trading Limited*

Methodist Healthcare System

Miami County, Kansas

Milgard Windows, Inc (Chicago)

Mirant Corporation (Philippines)*

MOL (America) Inc.

Monsanto Company

Moog Inc.

NASD

National Instruments Corporation

NAV Canada

Navitaire Inc.

NCS Pte. Ltd.

NELSON

Nestlé Group*

New Dimensions in Learning

New York Hospital Queens

New York Power Authority*

Niji

Nokia

Northern Alberta Institute of Technology*

Northrop Grumman Corporation*

Novo Nordisk A/S*

NVR, Inc.

NYK Line (Japan)

O&A Investment Services

ODL, Inc.

Oerlikon Balzers Coating

Office of the Arizona Attorney General

Ohio Permanente Medical Group

ON Semiconductor*

One Network Bank

Ontario Hospital Association

OrthoCarolina

Owens Corning*

Oxford Industries, Inc.

Oxford Instruments plc

Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.

Panasonic de México S.A. de C.V.

PAR Springer-Miller Systems

Patheon Inc.*

Patriot Energy Group, Inc.

Peopleclick, Inc.

PeopleSupport, Inc.

Perot Systems*

Perum BULOG*

Pfizer Inc.*


45

Pitney Bowes Inc.

Plastipak Packaging Inc.*

Pond & Company

PPG Industries

Premier Farnell plc

Premiere Global Services

Priority Health

Proeza

Propal S.A.*

PSCU Financial Services, Inc.*

PT Bank Niaga Tbk.*

PT Holcim Indonesia Tbk*

PT PAM Lyonaisse Jaya*

PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia Tbk

PT Trakindo Utama*

PT United Tractor Tbk*

PUUL GmbH

PZ Cussons Australia Pty Ltd

Qioptiq Imaging Solutions

Quantum Foods Incorporated

Quintiles Transnational Corporation

Randstad

Randy’s Ring & Pinion

Ready Bake Foods

RealtyTrac Inc.

Red Hat, Inc.

The Regus Group plc

Rent-A-Center

Réseau de transport de la Capitale,

Quebec, Canada

Réseau de transport de Longueuil,

Quebec, Canada

Respironics, Inc.

Rich Products Corporation

Ripley S.A.*

Risk Management Solutions, Inc.

Robert Bosch (Australia) Pty Ltd

Rock-Tenn Company

Rodelag

Rohm and Haas (Scotland) Ltd.

Roto-Rooter Inc.

Royal Caribbean International

Rydex Investments

SABMiller plc

SAGA GWG

Saint Francis Medical Center

Saint Joseph’s Hospital*

St. Louis Children’s Hospital

SAP America Inc.

SAS Autosystemtechnik Verwaltungs GmbH

Schenck Business Solutions

Schering-Plough Corporation*

Schneider Electric S.A.

Schreiber Foods Inc.

S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Scott Jardine Ltd.

Sears Holdings Corporation

Secured Funding Corporation*

Shangri-La Hotels & Resorts*

Siemens Corporation*

SILOGIC

Simplot Australia Pty Ltd

The Situs Companies

SK Comercial

Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics GmbH

Smiths Aerospace

Smiths Medical

Smolin Lupin & Company

Smorgon Steel Group Ltd

Société Pierre Boucher

Software ONE, Inc.

Solutions Emploi

Southlake Regional Health Centre

SPi

Stabilit S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)

Standard Life plc*

Sterling Commerce

Sterling Equities

Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc.

Sucre Arias & Reyes

Sun Life Inc.

Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.*

Swissport International Ltd.

Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated*

Symbol Technologies, Inc.

Syncrude Canada Ltd

SYSCO Corporation

T&T Consulting

Tarong Energy*

TeleTech Holdings, Inc.

TELUS Corporation

Temple University Health System

Tenaris

Texas Children’s Hospital*

Thermotech, S.A. de C.V.

Thomas Kinkade Company

The Thomson Corporation (Philippines)

Toga Hospitality*

Toronto Rehabilitation Institute

Total E&P USA Inc.

Total Interior Systems—America, LLC

Toyota Motor Philippines*

Tozzini, Freire, Texeira e Silva Advogados

Traders Hotels*

Trane Systems

TRANZACT

Trend Micro Incorporated*

Triton Systems, Inc.

Turbomeca USA

Tyco Healthcare Group LP

UCI Medical Center*

UFS Dispensaries Ltd

Unified Western Grocers, Inc.

Unilever*

Union Switch & Signal Inc.*

United Recovery Systems, LP

United Way of Greater Rochester

Unitus Community Credit Union

University of Technology Sydney*

UNM Hospitals



URS Corporation

Utah Retirement Systems

Vanke Co., Ltd.*

Velsicol Chemical Corporation

ViewPoint Bank*

Virchow, Krause & Company, LLP

Virginia Department of Rehabilitative Services

Virtual Causeway

Vytec Corporation

Waterfront Philippines Incorporated

Watson Wyatt Asia-Pacific

Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.

The Weather Channel Interactive, Inc.*

Weidmüller GmbH & Co. KG

Wellmark, Inc.

Westfield Ltd.

Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research

WhiteWave Foods Company

Who’s Calling, Inc.

Wilhelm Karmann GmbH

Wireless Generation, Inc.

Wizard Home Loans

Wolverine World Wide, Inc.

Workforce Safety & Insurance*

World Relief

WorleyParsons LTD

Worthington Industries

Worthyjobs Pte Ltd

WPS Resources Corporation

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals*

Wyndham Hotel Group

Xperianz

Yankee Group Research, Inc.

YMCA du Grand Montréal

YMCA of Greater Rochester

Zenith Insurance Company

Zetec, Inc.

Zimmer, Inc.

Zimmer MedizinSysteme GmbH

The Zitter Group

Note: When completing the HR survey, each respondent was asked to type the full name of the organization he or she represented. In publishing the list of participating organizations, DDI

cannot assume responsibility for errors in spelling or other errors in the information provided by these individuals. This list does not include organizations that wish to remain anonymous.


ABOUT THE AUTHORSAnn Howard, Ph.D., is DDI’s Chief Scientist.

As the leader of DDI’s Center for Applied

Behavioral Research (CABER), she evaluates

the validity and impact of DDI programs and

uncovers global trends and issues in human

talent management. Ann has more than 30 years’ experience

as an industrial-organizational psychologist, specializing in

assessment centers and managerial careers. She is a

recognized author, researcher, and speaker in her field.

She has held leadership roles in a variety of professional

organizations and is a past president of the Society for

Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP).

Scott Erker, Ph.D., is the Senior Vice President

of Selection Solutions for DDI. He oversees the

design and implementation of comprehensive

selection systems that improve the speed and

quality of hiring decisions. He has worked with

many Fortune 500 companies, including General Motors,

Microsoft, Marriott, and Coca-Cola. He has been a featured

speaker at SIOP, the Human Capital Institute Summit, and the

Global Workforce Leadership Summit. Scott is quoted

frequently in business and trade publications, including TheWall Street Journal and Sales & Marketing Management.

Neal Bruce is the Vice President of Alliances at

Monster. He has been in the recruiting industry

for the past 14 years. His first 11 years were

spent as a practitioner, moving from recruiter to

recruiting manager to director of staffing for a

global software organization. In his current position Neal is

responsible for creating and executing Monster’s HR Vendor

Alliances strategies. He is a member of the Human Capital

Institute’s National Advisory Board and is a frequent speaker

at HR industry conferences.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSProject Management: Jennifer Pesci-Kelly, Jeffrey Quinn,

Bradford Thomas

Recruitment: Dwiputri Adimuktini, Sonia Allard, Malu

Arredondo, Mathieu Belli, Bronwyn Bower, Mark Busine,

Alejandro Del Moral, Nikki Dy-Liacco, Barbara Endemann,

Peter Harris, Sandy Hill, Jean-Paul Isson, Matthias

Klappenbach, Annabelle Maury, Christen McCabe, Lucy

McGee, Yvonne McGowan, Magali Personnier, Allison

Picciano, Rehana Sharma, Karine Skobinsky, Lily Sun,

Jon Swedberg, Steve Sylven

Research Team: Paul Bernthal, Jason Bondra, Alexander

Davis, Jazmine Espejo, Carla Fogle, Julia Peters

Editorial: Mike Crawmer, Shawn Garry

Graphic Design: Patrice Andres, Susan Ryan, Janet Wiard

47


ENDNOTES1. “Jobless Rate Off: 97,000 Added to Payrolls,” by J.W. Peters, March 10,

2007, The New York Times, pp. B1–B4.

2. (2007, Mar. 16). Labour force survey by OECD Statistics

http://stats.oecd.org/wbos

3. “Rapid Recruiting in China Undercuts Predictions of a Looming Talent

Shortage,” by F. Nansen, Nov. 20, 2006, Workforce Management, 85(22),

pp. 36–37.

4. “To Have and to Hold,” March 2006, New Zealand Management, 53(2), p. 14.

5. “Job Sharing Key to Solving Skills Shortage,” April 2006, In the Black, 76(3),

p. 12.

6. “Reaching Out from Down Under,” by T. Hoffman, December 18, 2006,

Computerworld, 40(51), p. 30.

7. Selection Forecast: Recruiting and Hiring Talent, by P.R. Bernthal and S.

Erker, 2005, Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.

8. “Seven Major Job Trends for 2007,” by M. Ferguson, 2007.

Available online at http://www.careerbuilder.com/JobSeeker/

careerbytes/CBArticle.aspx?articleID=610&cbsid=

2cbd036fc7a44e1e8f2e9b9318755937-226930056-TE-4&mine=-1

9. 2007 Sales Outlook Snapshot Survey, by D.J. Cichelli, 2007, Scottsdale,

AZ: The Alexander Group.

10.“If You’re On Time and Breathing, You’re Hired,” by C. Gillis, October 16,

2006, Maclean’s, 119(41), p. 20.

11. “Personnel Selection,” by I.T. Robertson & M. Smith, 2001, Journal ofOccupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(4), pp. 441+.

12.“War for Talent, Part Two,” by E.L. Axelrod, J. Handfield-Jones, & T.A.

Welsh, 2001, The McKinsey Quarterly, 2, pp.9–11.

13.“Best Practices in Leader Selection,” by A. Howard, 2006. In J.A. Conger

& R.E. Riggio (Eds.), The Practice of Leadership: Developing the NextGeneration of Leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

14. Ibid.

15.“Getting Wise to Lies,” by L.T. Cullen, May 1, 2006, Time Canada,167(28), p. 27.

16.In “Brickbats,” by C. Oliver, April 2006, Reason, p. 8.

17.Landing the Job You Want: How to Have the Best Job Interview of YourLife, by W.C. Byham & D. Pickett, 1999, New York: Three Rivers Press.

18.“Identifying, Assessing, and Selecting Senior Leaders,” by A. Howard,

2001, in S.J. Zaccaro & R. Kilmoski (Eds.), The Nature and Context ofOrganizational Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

19.Cited in Ferguson (see note 8).

20.“Why Your Employees are Losing Motivation,” by D. Sirota, L.A. Mischkind,

& M.I. Meltzer, April 10, 2006, Harvard Business School Working

Knowledge. Available online at http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/5289.html

21.“Retention Strategies for 2006 and Beyond,” Monster Intelligence, Winter

2006. Available online at http://media.monster.com/a/i/intelligence/pdf/

Monster_Research_Retention_Strategies_for_2006.pdf



© Development Dimensions International, Inc., MMVII. All rights reserved.

MICABERSR14

*HJFC*HJFC

$50

THE AMERICAS

WORLD HEADQUARTERSPITTSBURGH412.257.0600

MEXICO CITY52.55.1253.9000

TORONTO416.601.5500

Other offices includeAtlanta, Calgary, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit,Monterrey, Montreal, New York, St. Louis, San Francisco, Santiago, and São Paulo

EUROPE/AFRICA

DÜSSELDORF49.2159.91680

LONDON44.1.753.616.000

PARIS33.1.41.9686.86

Other offices include Johannesburg and Warsaw

ASIA-PACIFIC

SHANGHAI86.21.6113.2525

SINGAPORE65.6226.5335

SYDNEY61.2.9466.0300

Other offices include Auckland, Bangkok, Beijing, Brisbane,Dubai, Hong Kong, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur,Manila, Melbourne, Mumbai, Perth, Seoul,Taipei, and Tokyo

TO LEARN MORE:EMAIL: [email protected]

MICABERSR14_CV.qxp 4/26/2007 3:02 PM Page 2

Date post:	22-Feb-2017
Category:	Business
Upload:	meghan-daily
View:	2,116 times
Download:	0 times